Re: A successor for PQgetssl

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I have to agree with Martijn here too.  It's not all that expensive to
> provide read/write calls to abstract away the specific library being
> used (since psqlODBC, at least, couldn't care less which library is
> being used, really)

You're failing to consider async applications.  AFAICS, the *minimum*
API would bereadwriteread ready?write ready?get socket so I can use it in select()
(very possibly there's some stuff I missed, considering I haven't
consumed any caffeine yet today...).  And that's just considering
the data transport aspect of it.  I'm still concerned that SSL-using
apps may wish to twiddle the SSL library in ways we don't even know
about.
        regards, tom lane